Commentary: ‘Sexual harassers’ protest guns on campus


Hundreds of students at the University of Texas participated in a campus carry protest on Wednesday, with many carrying sex toys donated by local merchants to protest the concealed carry of firearms on campus. As one student organizer of the protest said, “The dildos will stay as long as the guns are here. So if you’re uncomfortable with my dildo, you cannot imagine how uncomfortable I am with your gun.”

But, according to both their own university and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, every one of yesterday’s dildo-brandishing protesters is almost certainly guilty of sexual harassment. Ridiculous? Yes. But also true.

In a 2013 letter that it called “a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault,” the Office for Civil Rights used a dubious interpretation of Title IX to require that colleges define sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct” (that is, speech).

That’s right: According to the Department of Education, this protest was also sexual harassment. Waving a detailed replica of a penis around while yelling “Cocks Not Glocks” certainly counts as verbal conduct of a sexual nature, and surely at least one of UT’s more than 50,000 students must have found this speech unwelcome.

Despite protests from civil liberties groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, where I work), the Office for Civil Rights has stuck to this wildly overbroad definition, most recently in an April letter to the University of New Mexico.

UT’s policies fare little better. The university defines sexual harassment generally as “(u)nwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” though it does limit this to conduct aimed at “a specific individual” that creates a “hostile or offensive atmosphere.” That means that any student with whom the protesters argued on Wednesday could claim to be a victim of harassment under the policy, which specifically lists “exposure to sexually suggestive visual displays” as a potential trouble spot.

The university does attempt to pay lip service to the First Amendment by applying its policy only to expression “not necessary to an argument for or against the substance of any political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic idea.” But given that the public display of sex toys is hardly “necessary” to argue against guns on campus — people argue against the issue in other ways all the time — this provision will do little to help any student protesters accused of sexual harassment.

Regardless of one’s feelings on the merits of guns on campus or this form of protest against them, the idea that these protesters are sexual harassers is absurd. Creative protests are part of college life. But should some offended UT student complain to the university or to the Office for Civil Rights, either would have little choice but to take those complaints seriously and open some kind of investigation.

Not only would this be a waste of time and resources that could be used to address real sexual harassment, any investigation is sure to create a chilling effect over free speech and the right to protest on UT’s campus.

Both the Office for Civil Rights and UT have repeatedly ignored the First Amendment implications of their policies. One hopes that it won’t take the embarrassing debacle that an investigation into these student protestors would undoubtedly become to convince these organizations to get serious about ensuring that their policies address real sexual harassment while respecting students’ constitutional rights.

Shibley is the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.


Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the editor: June 25, 2018
Letters to the editor: June 25, 2018

The Austin City Council voting on CodeNext dishonors the act of voting, the 2012 council vote for Imagine Austin and the individuals who sacrificed for voting rights and our form of government — veterans, first responders and citizens. It’s time to stop the process, otherwise the city’s goals set forth in Imagine Austin will go unfulfilled...
Opinion: Return of the blood libel

The speed of America’s moral descent under Donald Trump is breathtaking. In a matter of months we’ve gone from a nation that stood for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a nation that tears children from their parents and puts them in cages. What’s almost equally remarkable about this plunge into barbarism is that it&rsquo...
Opinion: On being decent

Not too long ago, I returned to my parked car and found a sheet of paper on the windshield bearing an expletive-laden message. The anonymous poster had obviously gone to some effort to make these flyers on his home computer — complete with color cartoon figures and such. It let me know what an (obscenity) I was. My sin was having parked my car...
Herman: Beto O’Rourke flashes star power at Texas Democratic Convention
Herman: Beto O’Rourke flashes star power at Texas Democratic Convention

Some takeaways taken away from three days with 7,500 or so delegates at the Texas Democratic Convention: In general, the Dems didn’t approve a platform with nearly the volume of nutty stuff the Repubs did at their convention. Oh, there’s plenty in the Dem platform that some folks won’t like, but there’s nothing approaching the...
Facebook comments: June 24, 2018
Facebook comments: June 24, 2018

As reported by the American-Statesman’s Johnathan Silver, Austin-based nonprofit Southwest Key Programs spoke out against family separations at the border after President Donald Trump signed an executive order ending the practice. The organization posted a statement on Facebook that said, “Southwest Key Programs does not support separating...
More Stories